Wolfgang Lenerz writes: <> > > No. You would be in control of all relevant UPloads to the site. > > Will that be such a good idea? I can already see people protesting > that I have too much control over what is happening on the website.
You already have a lot of control ;) Only if that control is shown to be beneficial, efficient and fair will it have any meaning. Openness will provide continuous proof of that as well as many other benefits. A web-based framework as I have sketched seems to answer. However there is little point in discussing this further as neither I nor you are going to put this into practise, and no one else seems interested in even discussing the matter. No skin of my nose. Ill go along with any plan that does the job. So, what is the plan, guys? Or dyall think we can develop a complex, multi-component system, targeted at a variety of platforms and a multitude of users, put to a plethora of different uses - some of which may not even be thought of yet - simply with the aid of this list (sporting discussions ranging from hardware to haggis) plus the private communication between individual, voluntary developers and a benign registrar? > > They will anyway. > > Will they? > > > But with a central, open site at least we'll all have the > > chance to see what the results of those discussions are as soon as the > > outcomes have been agreed. > > > > > NOT saying that this is a bad thing but it will mean that > > > development will be made on a more ad hoc basis. As the software > > > registrar, with a mission to try to keep unified versions where > > > possible (and thus, trying to steer the thing a bit), that must leave > > > me with fixed feelings, of course since my power to influence > > > things will be diminished (if it ever existed). But again, if this serves > > > the community, I have no problems with it > > > > I think the best you can ever hope for is to have some control over the > > integrity of the sources. > Which I won,'t if you can exchange them that easily. Again, I'm not > saying this because I want absolute control over the sources, butif I > don't have any, we can all forget the registrar... Sorry if I didnt make myself clear... > > What facilities and improvements will be developed > > will be entirely up to the interests and abilities of the people involved. > > True - but then again, if I'm thje central hub, I *might* be able to > push development more in one (common) direction. We'll see. > > At present there is virtually no control over who legal users are. If a > > reseller went down, or if there was a corrupt reseller (God forbid!) there > > is currently no way of knowing. > > So? I mean, tough luck. > > > My proposal is that each user license > > would come with its own serial number that the customer could use to > > register with the database to allow free upgrade downloads or support > > entitlement. > NO! > I want to keep the commercial side and the development side > TOTALLY separate. > I may be responsible as software registrar to get the binaries to the > resellers - but the relation between them and the users is NONE of > my concern, and it shouldn't be. > Support must be handled by the people who sold you your > SMSQ/E. You are quite right. Suggestion withdrawn. > Of cxourse, if a bug is discovered, I think veryone will try to correct > it, but there is a difference between that and the support supplied > by the resellers! I sincerely hope that in the event of a bug being discovered, not everyone will try to correct it ;) <> Per
